Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
< September 5 September 7 >

September 6


Template:Infobox CityIT

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep --Michael Billington (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}, with which instances should be replaced. This is part of a large-scale operation to merge similar geographical infoboxes into the generic parent, to reduce maintenance overheads. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me we have a consensus here from some of the main WP:Italian memberers like Attilios and Spackman that so long as ALL of the paramters and information is retailed they would support a merger. Note that this nomination was not about deletion anyway it was precisely about merging and giving the infobox a redesign. Himalayan 11:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert backend to use {{infobox settlement}}. This will allow everyone to see the result of a merger, and make sure that nothing is lost in the process, as well as providing a more unified appearance. Once the backend is converted in a satisfactory manner, debate on the merits of keeping this as a regional-specific frontend can continue. And, yes, I will do the initial conversion. Just ping me. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Northern Epirus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was No consensus with the strong suggestion that discussion continue at here, or a formal WP:RFC be opened to deal with accusations of irredentist terms. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Northern Epirus (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I am nominating this template for deletion on behalf of another user. "This template is based on irredentist views of a particular ethnic group. "Northern Epirus” is an irredentist term, and therefore it would be highly POV to maintain a template regarding it." From what I understand of the subject, this template appears inappropriate, though I profess I am no expert. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps it would be better to rename it to a more neutral title, e.g. "Greek minority in Albania". The term "Northern Epirus" does indeed represent the Greek POV, but that does not mean that as a subject group (Greeks in southern Albania) it does not exist, that it does not have its own history and could use a navbox to summarize the relevant articles. There are many similar navboxes on minority groups, after all. Constantine ✍ 00:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from being considered irredentist the term is mainly associated with Greek populations that live in southern Albania (they call it N.E. and 785 hits in googlebooks use it too), which is the main reason that it exists. Historically, the term was rejected as irredentist by the Albanian communist regime (1945-1991). I see no reason to delete a 'term' virtually adopting a tottalitarian approach. Actually the template's title is Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania (as per geographic and cultural background). For example template:Cham Albanians template is also considered irredentist by many Greeks, but the term concerns history and culture of a specific group that self identifies itself as 'Chams' (originating from Chameria-also considered an ir. term by some Greek). The same situation exists with a group called 'Northern Epirotes' that originates from 'Northern Epirus'. Imagine deleting any reference about terms associated with minorities because they are considered irredentism by parts of neiboring socities...Alexikoua (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template is related to a region, and the term used to describe that region is related to irredentism. We need to be absolutely neutral.--Alarichus (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Epirus is a region that has existed for several thousand years.There was a south and a north just like an east and west of it.The term is used in archeological books as well as in political books or those of our recent history.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please do not express irredentist beliefs. Megistias, please sign your comment. As wikipedians we should be as neutral as possible, and that is why we must not support irredentist opinions of certain ethnic groups. --Alarichus (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:Since the deletion proposal was initiated by a typical national advocacy spa (6 times blockes in 2 months for breaking wp:npa, wp:incivility+1, wp:3rr, with an 1-revert limit). I suggest to deal with the proposal with heavy precaution.
I was meaning to be "irredentist".The term is used by archaeologists- that was my point.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the last removals on the template, I have provided a number of 'rs' sources that prove minority presence in the specific towns and regions. Seems there is no reason of adopting a 1989 totalitarian census, since it is questioned by today's bilbiography ([[1]]). What does neutrality really mean? Comply with questioned data by former regimes? Imagine relying on North Korean data today. This has mainly to do with how we treat historical, cultural and social issues.Alexikoua (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please focus on the TfD. Make no comments about other contributors, and discuss issues on their talk pages. And as I told you earlier, be neutral. And Megistias, please provide some examples. --Alarichus (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've presented a number of sources about which regions are considered minority ones in the template's talk page. There is also a map of 'le monde diplomatique '[[2]], about minority's concentration. Also the polyphonic song of Epirus article, should be re-included since it is a cultural element of the local population (it is not exclusively Greek but this is not an arguement for deleting it as a cultural element -also shared- by local Greek communities).Alexikoua (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--Kushtrim2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC). — Kushtrim2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment:The above user's contribution Kushtrim2 in wikipedia is 'zero' [[3]]. Seems to be I_Pakashems recently created suckpuppet.Alexikoua (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentAs for Kushtrim2, his only WP contribution was to correct the word graffiti into graffities in an article just 8 minutes before deciding to come here and vote. He may be a sockpuppet but then, he may be not. --Factuarius (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Suppose he was born only to vote here.Alexikoua (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. To understand why, see Section "The Irredentist Legacy: The Northern Epirus Question" page 70-76 (Stirring the Greek nation: political culture, irredentism and anti-Americanism in post-war Greece, 1945-1967 Author Giannēs D. Stephanidēs Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 0754660591, 9780754660590) [4] It would be in the same level with Greater Albania template Aigest (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Kushtrim2 has 2 edits, he may have been an ip contributor, he may be a sockpuppet. We don't know. I will have him checked. Alexikoua, please do not act like that again. Interesting book, Aigest. To all:Let the procedure continue and do not disrupt it.--Alarichus (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not think a section of a book is a justification to delete a template. Northern Epirus is a cultural entity that plays great role on both Greece and Albania and this template is very useful to demonstrate this.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irredentist term, used by nationalists. Same would apply to greater Albania, southern Scotland, greater Bulgaria, greater Serbia, greater Romania. Please do not canvass. --Alarichus (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is really not that simple, not is it that at all. I recommend you made a little search to see this.--Michael X the White (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because x community has lived for x years there, y community are conquerors, and that means it belongs to "us". The same argument is used worldwide. Seriously, it's the same.--Alarichus (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been trying all day long, to make Greek and Albanian editors be neutral, but that just does not seem to happen. Alexikoua, my friend, you should really consider not canvassing. --Alarichus (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I dont understand why asking for second opinion in wiki (espacially users that are considered real contibutors and not just 'reverters' and national spa's [[5]]) is more disruptive than making it through irc?
  • Alarichus, you really believe that your are neutral, making a 'zero' contributor's vote valid?
    I am not in the mood to continue discussions with irc ghosts in wiki. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I am currently checking if he is a sock. If he is a sock, then of course his viewpoint will not be valid. Until now there is no proof that he is a sock.--Alarichus (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term is not irredentist, it is notable, and is well-attested in the literature. As far as I see, the only argument put forth for deletion is that it is an irredentist term, but it is not, and even if it were, that is not sufficient reason for deletion. What matters is notability and attestation in the literature, both of which are satisfied. If Albanian nationalist editors dislike the term, that is irrelevant. This is the second attempt by Albanian nationalist SPAs to delete it, after an unsuccessful first attempt. --Athenean (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title 'Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania', concerns mainly the cultural, social and geographical background of a minority. It is obvious that irredentist associations by neighbouring nations is only one side of the coin. The place is not the appropriate for extended explanations but a detailed description on why I vote 'keep' is on this book's (Badlands-Borderland: A History of Southern Albania/Northern Epirus. Tom Winnifrith.), Duckworth, 2002 ISBN 9780715632017. (a short historical background by a neutral academic source),a look. Why should a geographically-historical term mainly be considered just irredentist, because a former regime or editors with well known Albanian nationalistic background and WP-activity rejected it as such? --Factuarius (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment related to the deletion proposal and nomination

  • We have the irredentist term "In 1914 the Greek population left outside Greece proceeded in Gjirokastër to a general proclamation of authonomy for "Northern Epirus"(a political term of irredentist content established on the Greek side ever since) page 197 Greece and the Balkans: identities, perceptions and cultural encounters since the Enlightenment Author Dēmētrēs Tziovas EditorDēmētrēs Tziovas Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2003 ISBN 0754609987, 9780754609988 link [6]
  • We have the irredentist ideology "The Irredentist Legacy: The Northern Epirus Question" page 70-76 (Stirring the Greek nation: political culture, irredentism and anti-Americanism in post-war Greece, 1945-1967 Author Giannēs D. Stephanidēs Edition illustrated Publisher Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 ISBN 0754660591, 9780754660590) [7] with the related propaganda continued even after 90' "In the northern Greek town of Konitsa, a radio station backed by the local Orthodox bishop was broadcasting Greek propaganda to South Albania" page 339 Macedonia and Greece: the struggle to define a new Balkan nation Author John Shea Editionillustrated Publisher McFarland, 1997 ISBN 0786402288, 9780786402281 link [8]
  • We have the irredentist claim "Thereafter the fate of the Chams surfaced only rarely, usually in connection with Greek irredentist claims to "Northern Epirus" page 26 After the war was over: reconstructing the family, nation, and state in Greece, 1943-1960 Princeton modern Greek studies Author Mark Mazower Editor Mark Mazower Edition illustrated PublisherPrinceton University Press, 2000 ISBN 0691058423, 9780691058429 link [9] noticed even here in wiki see Greece mentioned here [10]
  • We have the irredentist armed wing Northern Epirus Liberation Front which has made armed attacks even after 90'

"The most visible focus of the Berisha government's fear of Greek irredentism was the Northern Epirus Liberation Front (MAVI), which claimed responsability for the car bombing of Albania's ambassador to Greece in 1991 and was accused in 1994 and 1995 of orchestrating attacks on Albanian border posts and military personnel." page 179 The politics of national minority participation in post-communist Europe: state-building, democracy, and ethnic mobilization Authors Jonathan P. Stein, EastWest Institute (New York, N.Y.) Editor Jonathan P. Stein Edition illustrated Publisher M.E. Sharpe, 2000 ISBN 0765605287, 9780765605283 link [11]

It looks pretty clear to me that Alarichus proposal is more than based. As for the relation to Greek population in Albania the proposal of Constantine makes more sense than the use of such POV terms. Aigest (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the information provided by Aigest and the reasoning provided for in this nomination, I will opt for delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just had a crash course in irredentism and I find this template to be inappropriately validating a particular POV. A historical article explaining the history of this place is of course within our ambit; this is not. Delete. --Closedmouth (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see nothing more than an one-sided approach, provoked by 'innocent' irc 'help'. I wonder why some users feel at the same time that the template:Cham Albanians template is just innocent looking. Obvious one more typical nationalist spa campaign under a npov fairytale...Alexikoua (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (clarifying allegations) there is no Chamëria template (we can open another discussion for it if you want) comparable to Northern Epirus template (the one we are discussing now). The irredentist claims relate to territory, as for the people related to the alleged areas (Cham Albanians templates relates to the people) as I said above the proposal of renaming it to "Greek minority in Albania" made by Constantine makes more sense than the use of such POV terms. Aigest (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aigest: This means that your are ok with renaming 'Northern Epirus' to 'Northern Epirotes'? as per Cham Albanians? (suppose this is what you mean)Alexikoua. So, why don't you vote rename instead of delete? Remember that the term 'Cham Albanians' is also non-official irredentism (how about Albanians of Thesprotia?)(talk) 12:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Northern Epirotes or Greeks in Albania (scratch this proposal since the people existed before the creation of the Albanian state) per Template:Cham Albanians. Another possibility: keep and rename to Greeks in south Albania (at least this, as oppossed to simply Albania, gives the sense of geography)/Greeks in northern Epirus. 87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:current title is 'Northern Epirus region & Greek culture in Albania'. What do you exactly suggest? (The term Northern Epirotes is also rejected by the Albanian site, however it is in full accordance with Cham Albanians)Alexikoua (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nice logic Aigest is passing us: When this madness will end, I am going to ask J Milburn to nominate for deletion the Northern Ireland template because of the IRA and I will ask all of you to take part in the discussion there. --Factuarius (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Users Kushtrim2 and 87.202.43.218, are going to be checked for sockpuppeting. To the rest of you:Take it easy. --Alarichus (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the proposal of "Greek minority in Albania" made by Constantine is more than fine. I support also Greeks in South Albania (it depends on the content inside if we are to speak for the Greeks inhabiting in other regions of Albania than the first terms would have been more appropriate). As Dēmētrēs Tziovas says (see above) the Northern Epirus term was created in 1914 (none used it before) and it is "a political term of irredentist content so it is better to avoid such terms in WIKI templates. Aigest (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly as the name of Northern Ireland in 1921 so it is better to avoid also such terms in WIKI templates. At least Northern Epirus had a state entity under the terms of the Protocol of Corfu in where the very Albanian Government officially recognized the area of Northern Epirus as an autonomous region. --Factuarius (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Suppose you agree renaming 'Cham Albanians' to 'Albanians of Thesprotia' according to the same arguements you propose? since terms chameria/chams are clear pov pushing irredentism terms by the same reasons (there is no chameria and chams as well-same reasons right?). You try to create victims and criminals? The good and the bad ones...Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, please comment only on the issue. This is not a forum.--Alarichus (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict with Alarichus)Alexikoua the terms are not in the same comparison for obvious reasons. We can say that Cham albanians are a division of Albanians. They have distinct dialect, traditions, folklore, habits etc among other Albanians. I don't see such a division or even a difference between if we were to say "North Epirotan Greeks" and "South Epirotan Greeks" and we can continue in this line for hours. Given that it would be great if we stick to the proposal issue and not turn this into forum. If you have to something to say about the arguments and references I have presented related to irredentism issue on this specific topic, ok, otherwise this is the last off-topic comment by my part. Aigest (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMy argument is clear, you cannot have a Northern Ireland template while deleting Northern Epirus template. As you cannot delete the Kosovo template because of the activity of UCK. To me this discussion is going out of any logic. That is my argument, and I found it absolutely relevant to the issue. --Factuarius (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination--82.114.79.163 (talk)
This vote was added to the template itself. This maybe a sockpuppet(70% possibility), or a user with a dynamic ip(30% possibility), when a checkuser is available he will be checked. Factuarious your parallelism is inaccurate. N.Ireland and Kosovo are official or semi-official entities, this isn't. This is just an irredentist term, for the southern part of an official country. This would be parallel to the creation of an "Aegean Macedonia" template. I may not be from the area, but I am familiar with the issues of the Balkans(please reply in my talkpage, not here). --Alarichus (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alarichus you are wrong, I don't know what you mean by semi-official entities, but N.Epirus had very official entity signed by the very official Albanian government. This nomination is sliding quickly into a phony one due to the extended sockpuppeting and the resulting decision will be more of a disgrace for all of us who tolerated such a procedure to decide over such a serious issue. --Factuarius (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. It pushes an irredentist and nationalistic POV campaign by greek editors to a new level, which is already in full force with them editing all relevant Albanian and Albanian related articles to hellenize southern Albanian artificially and undermine Albanian history and culture.--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both 'Northern Epirus' and 'Cham Albanians' templates should stay. What should change is the pov style of the relevant articles, not the topic itself. I'm sorry the delete arguments seems to be just nationalist pushing.

Comment: I woudln't vote since I was not related to this yet. Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today (as well as yesterday). Villick (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Alarichus? Do you really believe that the user who caused the current discussion was all these days out of the procedure coming just now just to vote? Have you seen his history in the Administrators' noticeboard? --Factuarius (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomin.--79.126.180.226 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment What I mean? That is what I mean. And you will find nothing, everyone can go to an internet-cafe and vote. --Factuarius (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can prove nothing, an disprove anything. 3 who said delete, and 2 who said keep may be or may be not sockpuppets. I cannot know. They will be checked. --Alarichus (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what you are going to do? You will continue to count IP votes until the last internet coffee shop? --Factuarius (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no checkusers available. And I cannot know if they are dynamic ips or internet cafes or new users trying to be "responsible" or new users interested in the subject or anything else, and neither can you. PLease let the procedure continue.At the moment it is 10 for deletion 8 for keeping. --Alarichus (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to laugh a little: Someone sent to someone the voting txt ready for posting; and the ..user post it it to the template itself!!! [12]. But finally the vote found the way to here. Thanks God. Nice "procedure" Alarichus --Factuarius (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I informed you all on that. Factuarious, you are becoming disruptive. Wait for the checkuser investigation. --Alarichus (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "Northern Epirus" may be OK for us Greeks, but it is a fact that it has irredentist overtones to Albanians. Since Aigest for instance seems to be OK with a title like "Greek minority in Albania", which covers the issue (which is real & valid irrespective of national POVs) just as well without limiting it to the geographic or historical (if we consider the 1914 Autonomous State) aspect, I'd like to vote Keep and rename accordingly. Any others? Constantine ✍ 15:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constantine your proposition is historically, culturally, religiously and geographically wrong. What we will answer to a Turk nationalist who will come tomorrow and say that the term Western Thrace has irredentist overtones to the Turks? Or, to a Greek nationalist who will come to say that the term Eastern Thrace has irredentist overtones to the Greeks? Not to mention other geographical parts --Factuarius (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep, 2 keep & rename --Alarichus (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be possibly counting all the socks, IPs and 2-edit "users"!--Michael X the White (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict) Factuarius, why? Is not Northern Epirus the same as the area inhabited by the Greek minority in what is today Albania? I rather think I am historically, culturally, religiously (?!?) and geographically correct when I say that both terms are roughly the same, since Greek presence in Albania has in modern times not extended north of Northern Epirus. Each case is judged on its merits, and the exclusive use of the term "Northern Epirus", which is considered irredentist by the country in whose territory it lies, would imply some sort of wider acceptance, which is not the case. In contrast, for whatever reason, the terms for Thrace are much more neutral and widely acceptable among the countries that share it (PS I don't really get the argument with Eastern Thrace). If a template about the Slavs in Greek Macedonia were created under the heading "Aegean Macedonia" would you not oppose it? (And again, there I would propose a more neutral heading like "Slavic minority in Greek Macedonia".) The point of a navbox is not to enforce the use of a certain label, but to provide a summary of the main topics pertaining to a subject group. This the template can do equally well under another heading. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I became informed in how you can solve a possible future problem by proposing a more neutral heading like "Slavic minority in Greek Macedonia", I became relaxed upon your proposition. But unfortunately I have already vote. --Factuarius (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, sarcasm won't bring us anywhere. I was making a comparison: the Albanians view the term just as we view "Aegean Macedonia". You may disagree, but they have a right to their own opinion. I also second Michael IX's comment above on the IP user votes. On such a controversial subject, IP editors are by definition suspect. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' The term is geographical and cultural not a nationalistic issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.20.27 (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one to be checked for being sock. --Alarichus (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! N. Epirus has nothing to do nationalistic issues and must not use "MAVI" to delete the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.2.82 (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — 79.166.2.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Northern Epirus template must stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.74.227 (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — 92.118.74.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sick off-wiki amateurish bait job

About this off-wiki [[13]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

  • This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[14]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
  • What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
  • The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[15]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. Alexikoua (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was later found also this [16]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning was obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [17]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious. --Alarichus (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mi-ref

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mi-ref (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is only used in a single article, and it really doesn't have purpose in that article anymore. TTN (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Coming out

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coming out (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems like a really bad idea. Besides the obvious possibilities for vandalism, why does this even need to be announced in a template at the top of an article? Generally, we don't draw attention to people's sexuality in this way; if a person's 'coming out' is sufficiently notable, it will be mentioned in their article anyway, but I cannot think of a single circumstance when using this template would be appropriate. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I understand that the purpose of this template is like the purpose of {{Recent death}}. Nevertheless, I do not think the event of recently "coming out" is in the same order of importance as a person's demise, to warrant the use of this template. It may be important for the person doing the "coming out", and for the GBTL-community (who is always overly eager to welcome new members in its midst), but I fail to see the value of this event for the maintenance aspects of our encyclopedia. 20:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
  • Delete. What the heck is the point of notifying our readers about this in a big, friendly box at the top of the article? --Conti|✉ 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep With all due respect to my fellow wikipedians I think this template is particularly useful at moments where someone (usually a notable personality) has come out of the closet. That said, I understand that some users might find extremely unusual to notify that a person has come out of the closet. However, you must acknowledge that the LGBT community has gone to great lengths to be taken seriously and I personally don't see how this template could not be of help as a follow up of who has or has not come out of the closet. As far as comparing this template to the template recent death in not being in the same level of importance it's my opinion that coming out of the closet is a milestone in anyone's life, especially those ones that are public figures. As the creator of such template I request the editors to keep an open mind regarding the importance of such template. I must add, this template has not been added as a trolling move whatsoever and as many of you can see I do use my real name in my contributions here in the English Wikipedia and I do believe this template is to be taken seriously. I would also like to request the involvement of editors of Wikiprojects related to the LGBT community so they can also give their opinion on this particular matter. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete If it's important information it should be stated in the article and lead. Not on a simple template. Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per Debresser. For the record, I'm gay and a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessarily draws attention to the fact, and a potential tool for vandalism. If the specific event concerned is newsworthy, we already have templates for this. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems pointless. If somebody comes out LGBT, the LGBT template can be applied with the appropriate section highlighted. Mish (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If the LGBT community wants to be taken seriously (which of course we do), this is a step in the wrong direction. Granted, coming out is a milestone in a person's life, but then again, so is turning 18, getting accepted into college, getting married, or becoming a mother or a father, and it would be equally ridiculous to have templates for those as well. Coming out, as well as the other examples I mentioned simply aren't comparable to one's death. I am also a member of Wikiproject LGBT studies and a transwoman. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 04:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trivializing the act of coming out of the closet. If that was the case then Clay Aiken would have never made the news. You got to keep in mind this template is intended to be used with notable personalities. If you think about it personalities are the ones that get the attention of the media in their milestones (such as the ones you have mentioned). My point with this template is simply that it's just another programmatic tool as infoboxes and bots. In fact , I don't even think the context of the template is as relevant as what it can do from the structural point of view. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, coming devoutly Christian and subsquently fiercely homophobic family I know all about the coming out process including depression and suicidal tendencies - I went through all of it. The simple fact is, every conceivable milestone in a person's life doesn't need to be highlighted by a recent tag. Secondly, Clay Aiken is a poor example, as he had millions of fans since his first day on American Idol and in fact, he didn't even come out of the closet until his media hype started to dwindle (to be exact, five years - 4 studio albums - and over 5 million records sold wordlwide - after he became a household name) and on top of that his coming out wasn't even that big a deal since half the planet suspected he was gay in the first place. And on top of that he became a father around the same time: so why aren't you arguing for a "recent parent" tag as well? Does not having one trivialize parenthood? I don't think so. This template doesn't serve any greater purpose than the LGBT Project tag or the sexual orientation categories, which are far more constructive. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It makes it into something it isn't - do we have boxes to announce that a person is straight? It's not like the moment they come out, part of them dies and it needs to be elevated to a glaring notification at the top of the article. If they are a prominent spokesperson or activist or artist/musician for whom being gay is central to their notability and work, then it can be in the lead of the article and still doesn't need a template. There is also massive BLP issues for us as a project if either they are not gay, or not publicly or openly gay - our saying so in bold caps causes them distress or discrimination in their real lives, especially in parts of the world with far less progressive legal regimes than our own. (Interpret GLBTIQ etc for "gay" in any of the above, I use the term purely for convenience of reference) Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSounds like a sensible innovation. Visibility of gay men and women in any media remains low, therefore anything that helps highlight where a public figure has come out is to be welcomed in the interests of improving transparency. I can think if several articles where this would work well. I'm less concerned about vandalism as an argument against. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such a template gives massive undue weight to an issue that is rarely the reason a person is notable. It does not provide anything useful imo. Coming out for most people is also not usually a single-event thing - a template cannot provide the nuance about if the person was previously out to his family, or it was an open secret, or if he was forced into admiting something. A complex issue cannot be approached with a one-size-fits-all template.YobMod 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many above, also per WP:UNDUE. Resolute 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In its best, most encyclopedic use, this would be an unnecessarily specific version of {{Current}}. At worst it can demonstrate all the problems described by others above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in agreement with several of the points raised above, particularly the notion that coming out is a process that can't necessarily be easily qualified. Even those who go on magazine covers under the headline "Yep, I'm Gay" don't just switch over from being in to being out. Otto4711 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a time-based template being applied to a non-time-based process. At what point should it be applied? When the subject has come out to his/her siblings or parents or family in general? When the subject is out at work, but not to family? When a journalist has written about the subject in a blog or in Women's Day or E!? When the subject is involuntarily outed? Would applying the template contribute to harm to the subject or otherwise go against WP:BLP? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Kaldari (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More appropriate to Wikinews or other time-sensitive publication - not an encyclopedia. - Davodd (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The Main use I can see for this template would be to show that the subject has indeed come out of the closet, it is verified by multiple independent, reliable sources, and it is considered factual. How many vandals have added "and is gay" to a BLP, just to mess around? How many editors have reverted a factual edit that shows someone coming out of the closet, on the assumption that it is actually vandalism? Something that says that the subject is out "For realz" would have value. The tone of this template is all wrong, though - the language isn't encyclopedic, and - hard as it may be to believe - someone might not immediately know what "coming out of the closet" means. Is there a clearer way to say what we're saying? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Launchballer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Non-admin closure, speedy delete as per WP:SIG. Launchballer 16:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Launchballer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a user's signature template. In essence, the user launchballer places this on a talk page, fills in some parsers and his message, then leaves it without substing. A template's not needed to flag that specifically launchballer has left a message on a page. GrooveDog (oh hai.) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Violation of signature guidelines, abuse of template namespace, and not at all constructive. Resolute 21:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought that the idea of having the talk bubbles and burgers would be a good idea. There are no ParserFunctions on that page. Also, if I were to substitute it, it would leave so much crap dotted around the editing window it's just uncanny. It's not for specifically me, thats why I also wrote some editable ones (talkbubble and burger). And BTW, those images are, as I have said before several times, NOT part of the signature itself. It is part of the talkbubble itself.--Launchballer 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable if the images were not there, but the bubble was?--Launchballer 15:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally still say no. Honestly, if your signature (and this is a signature) has "so much crap" associated with it - whether or not it's substituted, it really is nothing more than an annoyance. Consider how your little bubble would look in the midst of an involved discussion where you've made several replies. It is just not functional as part of a talk page comment. Resolute 20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still say keep, especially when I've found a way of dramatically reducing the markup required making it even less of a nuscience.--Launchballer 16:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading somewhere that no signature should be so bombastic that it gives the impression that user is more important than the page's other editors.
I fear that a 1.25" block of HTML may just do that. --King Öomie 12:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Warning

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems redundant with {{Uw-tempabuse}} template series. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ascript

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ascript (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Very old template. Redundant with {{IPA|ɑ}}. The especial character can be found in toolbox and in the special characters section of the new toolbar. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ApacheLicense

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ApacheLicense (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Apache-2.0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is only one image tagged with this. The image should be moved to commons and the template deleted. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AlumniStart2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete G7. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AlumniStart2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Alum2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AlumniEnd2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of them are duplicates ({{AlumniStart}}, {{Alum}} and {{AlumniEnd2}}). The only difference is that {{AlumniStart2}} use width as percentages instead of px. Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even remember creating this. Delete. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Alessandra Amoroso

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Alessandra Amoroso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No links. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless. Delete. Himalayan 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Aicelle Santos

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aicelle Santos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One link. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Australian Place

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Reviewing the debate as well as the concerns raised at AN/I, I think there is reasonable consensus to keep this template. Some of the speedy keep comments don't actually reference any of the sk crtieria, but the points they raise about engaging editors through normal communication prior to deletion are well taken. The general motivation behind the nomination--that parochial templates ought to be merged into or built from standardized underlying templates--is a laudable one. Fewer, better coded templates would be better than more specialized templates. However this general best practice does not provide for overriding local concerns. Quite obviously, those concerns exist. Those concerns are listed variously below but can be summarized thusly:

  1. Migration to the standard template presents a number of problems.
  2. Migration is a complex process best kept to a venue other than TfD. Proponents of the local template suggested the wikiproject talk page. Proponents of deletion have concerns that the selection of venue will have a great effect on the outcome.
  3. The nomination was not sufficient to demand deletion.

Those concerns, along with the number of people who expressed a strong desire to see the template kept, convince me that we cannot delete this template. I will say that many of the 'keep' arguments are unconvincing, consisting mainly of outrage or 'per the above'. Likewise the arguments that assert how irreplaceable an 'Australian' template is for Australian cities. The argument itself can be powerful, if it is supported by evidence or logic. When it is simply stated without strong support, it is much less convincing. The delete proponents made generally more convincing arguments but did so mostly by haranguing various other contributors, failing to assume good faith or generally carrying debate beyond the expected collegial atmosphere.

The final disposition of the template should be determined by a low stress, low volume discussion where consensus can be reached between opposite positions. Agreement on the basics with compromise over details should be the road ahead. High stress or high contingency processes like TfD or DRV should be avoided in favor of requests for comment or mediation. Please consider this admonition carefully before bringing this debate to DRV. I am willing to discuss my close on the AN/I thread or on my talk page. All that you need do is ask. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Arguments for keeping are the ease of using a more specific template, possible difficulties with the standard one given that a high number of Australian wikipedians are not accustomed to that template, and people aren't seeing a strong reason to delete. Arguments for deleting include standardization, introducing standard pin maps and rebuttals against some of the keep reasons. I am still swayed by the standardization arguments but I'm seeing too much opposition to deletion I am withdrawing this. It looks like consensus could be reached if adequate changes were made to the Australian Place infobox, namely the adding of a simple pushpin locator map and coordinates rather than having to resort to x and y pins which editors more accustomed to standard templates find difficult to use and a possible reshuffling of the order of the parameters. So perhaps this discussion could be carried on on the template's talk page or the Aussie noticeboard but in a more rational way to decide how to improve the existing template and address the concerns which prompted this nomination. Himalayan 13:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry dude, you don't get to close your own nomination with an obviously bogus result that flatters your position. On raw votes I count 21-4. The result of the discussion was keep. If you don't like it, request a neutral third-party closure, as you should have done in the first place. Hesperian 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett undid me. I undid Andy Mabbett. I've now requested this be reviewed and re-closed by an uninvolved third party. Hesperian 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australian Place (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This may not win any popularity contests but I would say the infoboxes need updating and allowing for a pin location map. I think the articles would look much better with a standard infobox (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Standard settlement example) and really there is no reason to have special templates for Australia. The parameters are really in disorder with timezone amongst main population details and backwards district order at the bottom rather than everything at the top in top down order which is convention. See Alice Springs, Northern Territory, I think the proposed standard template would work better please see the example. Please note that any parameters can be taken out or included such is the flexibility of the template if their are any concerns about empty parameters.. P.S. then we can get rid of thise undightly dot maps which bloat the beginning of the articles. Nice high quality svgs within the templates are the way to go! Himalayan 17:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and address some specific points from the nomination here since they're being lost in the lengthy discussion below. The point of addressing them here is that they misrepresent the true situation:

  1. "pin location map" - One is already included in the template. It is documented at Template:Infobox Australian Place/doc#loc-x and loc-y
  2. "The parameters are really in disorder with timezone amongst main population details" - Untrue. See Nelson Bay, New South Wales. The timezone appears well below population, at the end of the main information, before ancillary information such as property value.
  3. "backwards district order" - Awaiting the nominator's explanation of what this means.
  4. "undightly[sic] dot maps" - Where these exist, and they are certainly not in all articles, they do so probably because the locator map function was not documented until July 2008,[18] and the vast majority of articles were created before then. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No valid grounds given for deletion, and user has failed to engage at the template's or the project's talk page before coming here. The user's issue with the template seems to be with specific usages of it rather than a general case (the template is used in literally thousands of articles including a variety of settlement types from Local Government Areas to cities and towns to suburbs). I'd be happy to see the dot maps go myself, but that is a matter for Images for deletion, not a template discussion (the field is normally used for pictures of the locale). See for example the featured articles Hamersley, Western Australia, Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory and Waterfall Gully, South Australia as examples of their use "on the ground". Looking at the example I find it hard to imagine how any of these three articles would be accommodated, and certainly with many of our stubs, the proposed template would be substantially larger than the article. Orderinchaos 18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and direct nominator to discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia This is a high use template that is used in several thousand articles (if my maths is right it's about 6,646) and contains fields and information that is unique to Australian locations with unique linking. The nominator does not seem too familiar with the template as it already includes allowance for a pin location map, as used in articles such as Brisbane and Melbourne. The instructions for using the pin map are in the template documentation. The example that the nominator has used (Alice Springs, Northern Territory) is a poor example of the use of this template. Even an example such as Nelson Bay, New South Wales is a better example of the use of this template, which is not merely limited to individual settlements but to LGAs and even entire regions, such as Hunter Region. It appears that the aim of the nominator is replace the current infobox, which was decided on after considerable discussion, with his own version,[19] without involving the Wikipedians most affected. He should have discussed this first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia, not here. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see how many people who oppose are not members of WP:Australia.... The thing is, what does this template provide that the standard cannot? That's why I ask, my main concern is that I have no idea where the places are by simply looking at the infoboxes in Australia... (you use the location map in an extremely limited group of articles...) I think the standard layout is cleaner and easier to follow (if I knew how to operate the template I could have added location maps too them, that is my point, they are not easy for outsiders to follow who have to get to grips with how they work..). Could you explain why you think it is necessary to have a special template for Australia? The reason why it is necessary to discuss it here and not WP:AU is because it involves the whole community who read and look at these articles, your project doesn't own the template and any discussion is likely to entirely one sided in terms of viewpoint.... Himalayan 18:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's only one sided when you avoid discussing with those actually affected by it, and then make a radical proposal without any clear grounds, simply putting forward your own template for How Things Should Be (tm). If you were more willing to work with editors in good faith, you'd find that some of your ideas will be accepted by local editors whilst others will not be. That's just the nature of it. As for "ownership", likewise, those who develop Infobox Settlement do not own all geographical articles and nor should they. In a global encyclopaedia we can afford to be local in our scope to some degree to give readers a full appreciation of the variety of our world. You imply in the above that we think we are somehow special or set apart - this fails to explain why a considerable number of countries have their own templates, including that mothership of the English language, Great Britain. Each group of editors decides what is best for their needs, and I fully support that. At times the IAP development people have seen ideas they've liked in other templates and incorporated them. (Likewise, I know of several instances where our ideas have been used by others around the world.) In at least a dozen instances, some editor from the US or UK has wandered onto the talk page and pointed something out that needs fixing - usually the next line is "Done." High-handedness and bad faith is not necessary.
To give just two examples of how Australia is in fact different - no country besides Australia, New Zealand and South Africa has a concept of "suburbs" that matches our usage (and the other two countries have less precise or different definitions than Australia, so what works for us wouldn't work for them), and with the standard template, one loses the border tables which link people to surrounding suburbs. Similar issues apply to Local Government Areas. Take for example the suburbs in the ACT where no level of local government exists but the capital is divided into "regions" which have no autonomous authority whatsoever - our template accommodates that, but the standard does not. As AussieLegend has pointed out, the current template has both a simplicity and flexibility which allows all Australian conditions (even some unanticipated ones if ever there is a need) to be accommodated. Orderinchaos 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, don't you think that actually the standard infobox settlement can cater for suburbs in Australia? Does NZ or South Africa have their own templates? I guarantee that the template can be used on any settlement under the sun... Himalayan 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both have their own templates. And why should we settle for second best? "Can possibly be tailored to fit circumstances" vs "already fits circumstances well" is not really a competition. Orderinchaos 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well your goal was "standardising infoboxes across all towns and suburbs and creating a standard set of articles for Local Government Areas of Western Australia". So we evidently share similar goals, just a different point of view about which template to use. I think you just feel a little bit like I'm invading your turf so to speak because you have put time and energy into adding your templates to the articles, but I'm not, I just think wikipedia is better off having articles and documentation consistent.... I take things at face value. For instance Echuca, Victoria. I want to be able to glance at that infobox and know exactly where in Australia it. Why doesn't it providing a pushpin map to help my understanding? Then if I try to add a pushpin map and coordinates it won't work because I am unfamilar with the special template. Why can't all of the articles have a proper map and coordinates? Even Melbourne is not a good locator map for those who are unfamilar with Australia. Himalayan 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Within one single regulatory system, that is possible and desirable. All LGAs in Western Australia are governed by the same Act of Parliament, are accountable through the same Electoral Commission to voters, and through the same Local Government and Regional Development department to government itself. Even with other states we have occasional fractions which need to be resolved (eg the perennial Shire of ~ vs ~ Shire vs ~ (Shire) Council argument which is differently resolved in different places). Adding 200+ other countries is simply insane. I do not think consistency for its own sake is a good goal when we lose diversity - consistency only works when it is genuinely possible to be consistent. It has nothing to do with turf - I believe each country with an editing population large enough to justify it *should* have its own system, the argument is just as pertinent for countries in continental Europe with their own traditions, customs, languages and ways of doing things as it is for us. Where the population is not large enough to justify it and the detail will never be there, or if the editors of a given area believe the generic meets their needs well, yeah, have a generic system as a fallback.
As for your arguments based on individual applications of a template (which I maintain are irrelevant to this discussion) and your particular desires about what you want to see, that should be brought up with the project and discussed. For instance, I do see merit in some of your arguments about the ordering of the fields - perhaps that could be revisited. However the fundamental "we know best" attitude towards other societies and cultures and the *refusal* to discuss and the immediate assumption of bad faith coming from some Wikipedians (usually obsessed with some standard or other which readers do not give a stuff about) is really, really entrenched and I think as a Wikipedian it is important to challenge that. It should be for all, not the elite. If you want to travel to another country and you go around speaking to everyone in the Queen's English and correcting people, you will not get very far, even in an English speaking country. Same applies here. Orderinchaos 20:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and as an aside how do you propose your pin map model would work to suburbs in cities which I believe constitute almost half the applications of the current template? They'd all cluster around tiny points at the major city locations with no distinction between them. (And you still haven't answered the issue about the border table which links different suburbs together which is absent from the generic - I know for a fact the non-editing readers use such features heavily, as I've discussed it with colleagues.) I don't see what's wrong with clicking on the coords at the top right and then clicking on a map of one's choice. What Wiki can do is vastly inferior in quality to what the listed services on geohack can do. Orderinchaos 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur psychology like "I think you just feel a little bit like I'm invading your turf so to speak because you have put time and energy into adding your templates to the articles" doesn't help and indeed is flat wrong. There is opposition to your proposal because it proposes that we replace a purpose built template that works well with a generic template that will not work as well and the only reason given is that "everywhere else uses it". This is not convincing at all. You seem determined to see all opposition from Australians to your proposal as based on nationalism, it is not. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why people "don't discuss" is because they get this kind of inflamed rather passionate response that because they are not Australian they have no right to desire to see a pushpin map to see where it actually is.. I think you'd find that more "readers" would like a map showing where in Australia the place is than you might think. As I said if you actually had pin maps within your templates for each town article I wouldn't be so concerned. For suburbs of a city obviously a national locator wouldn't be needed you should just add whatever local map it is for location in city area. I am talking about town articles not suburbs. Himalayan 20:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Echuca doesn't have a pushpin map simply because nobody has entered the required information in the infobox. That's a problem that can exist in all templates, including the one that you're proposing. It's possible to use a whole Australia map in the infobox, which you'd know if you bothered to look at the template instructions, but it's not necessary. Australia isn't like the USA. We only have six states and two major territories. If you really want to push the "I want to be able to glance at that infobox and know exactly where in Australia it is" argument with any credibility, show me in the Lincoln, Nebraska article, which uses {{Infobox settlement}}, exactly where in the US Lincoln is. If you really want to know where in Australia Melbourne is, just click on the Victoria link at the top of the infobox (I notice that your infobox doesn't have one of those) and you'll see where Victoria is in Australia. Don't assume that everyone will want to see the same information as you. Different people are going to want to see different things. Some people would rather see where in Victoria Melbourne is. The practicalities are that you simply can't show everything that everyone wants in an infobox. That said, what is in {{Infobox Australian Place}} is either there through consensus or because somebody wanted it and there was room. As it stands though, even the existing, consensus built infobox is much larger than the prose in many of our stubs.[20][21] --AussieLegend (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This infobox has been developed with the peculiarities of Australian localities in mind. Why should editors be forced to use a compromise version rather than a special purpose template that is bith simple to use and flexible? The nominator's comment "It will be interesting to see how many people who oppose are not members of WP:Australia ..." makes his/her later comment "The reason why people 'don't discuss' is because they get this kind of inflamed rather passionate response" rather ironic, don't you think? -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I totally agree with you on United States. Most of them have local county locators, making it initially difficult for anybody outside the area to know where that county is in the state, let alone the country. They should definately at least have state locators, something shoul dbe done about that... Himalayan 20:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Of course, you haven't addressed any of the reasons given above as to why the standard template is not as suitable for the peculiarities of Australian localities. Merely asserting "absolutely no reason to deviate from standard settlement infobox layout and behaviour" does not make that statement factual. Imposing a North American model where it does not fit on the basis of "standardisation" (or should that be "standardization) does nothing to improve the encyclopedia and indeed will weaken the currently strong coverage of Australian localities. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section 1

Why do you guys always have to turn everything into a competition? I've lost count now how this nomination apparently seems to be a clash between Aussie and "North American" cultures rather than simply a good faith neutral attempt to get some consistency all across wikipedia. I am not a North American and neither do I have this obsession or will to impose "American values" over Australia. It is simply for technical and consistency reasons I have nominated this template regardless of national ideas of cultures. If somebody turns up here who is not from Australia or the project and doesn't share a biased way of looking at things and genuinely believes that the current Australian place template is far superior to a standardised template I might be more inclined to take note. As it is this nomination (and the way it was reported on the Aussie noticeboard has been as if I am somehow trying to steal your pride rather than having good intentions). More and more project members will continue to turn up to protect their property rather than trying to see things from a neutral perspective. So far, I don't think any AU member has at least acknowledged that the current infobox could be improved or that other people might see things differently even if it is kept in the end. You;ve said that people have different views but you so far have dismissed my concerns as completely redundant. This was exactly the response I had anticipated and why I felt I couldn't confront your project head on as I'd face an onslaught of protectionism. Himalayan 21:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything about "American values" nor is it a culture thing. Simply put, the peculiarities of Australian settlements are best dealt with at a local level and trying to use an ill-fitting bloated template (that may be fine for the US) will not work as well as the current arrangement. If there are specific problems with IAP, raise them there and they will be fixed. If there are actually any benefits to standardisation, point them out. Standardisation for its own sake is not always the best outcome. I think IAP works better in an Australian context than IS and that is why I oppose standardisation. Your passive-aggressive tactic of painting opposition to your proposal as "protectionism" or "local pride" is risible and hardly worth responding to. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Mattinbgn. It's a philosophical difference - i.e. I think "one size fits all" does not work, and while that has particular implications for Australia, it also has particular implications for many places and many of those have similarly resolved their issues with the standard by adopting their own schema. I mean how do you represent for example the difference between a place where what family the town's people come from is actually a key factor in that society, or one where the town has an ancient castle, once had its own prince and was established before 1000, and somewhere like Dalyellup which was created on the whim of a development company this decade? Simple - each should have its own solution, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the result is readable and meaningful information is conveyed to the reader. Orderinchaos 03:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Admin, please take note that above IP editor was blocked for disrupting in related discussions on this topic on the other pages. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 08:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section 2
  • Comment It is quite clear that there is a wider push at Template talk:Infobox settlement to work for the deletion of all regional locality infoboxes and their replacement with {{Infobox settlement}}. There does not seem to have been any wider discussion to see if such standardis(z)ation is actually supported by consensus or indeed if it is actually desirable to replace simple templates that work with an overly large, general purpose template that attempts to try and do too much and is not user friendly. The nominator, quite misleadingly, did not mention this goal in his/her deletion rationale, instead cherry-picking supposed faults with the template. (of course, a similar laundry list of "faults" can be raised for {{infobox settlement}} should one wish. I suggest closing this discussion (and the other regional infobox settlement discussions) and creating a general discussion at the Village Pump to determine consensus on moving to a single infobox for settlements. This process of picking infoboxes off one at a time will not see a consistent outcome at the end. If there is consensus on moving to a single template, then an orderly process to do that can be arranged. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shiftchange, Lankiveil, Orderinchaos and Mattingbgn. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How ridiculous. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template was the work of hundreds of hours by more than a dozen active contributors, myself included, and the merging of more than 14 different templates used beforehand. This template is the standard template for Australian places, and its usage is in the realm of 10,000 articles. It's deletion would be totally ridiculous. --TheJosh (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does the nominator or any of the other supporters of deletion have an actual plan of what to do if this template is deleted? Once the template is removed from the over 6,000 articles, then what? Wouldn't it be better to determine consensus on a move first, organise an orderly migration if one is needed and only then arrange for a deletion of a unused template? I know it might actually mean working with regional-focused editors rather than simply imposing one's will, but you might actually get a better result. This nomination (along with the others such as Austria) has been poorly thought out and is best speedily closed and discussion on the desirability of a move taken elsewhere. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It works for Australian editors, who are the only people ever likely to implement it in Australian articles.--Grahame (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am seeking wider discussion on the desirability of standardisation at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Standardisation on Infobox settlement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion WP:IDONTLIKE, please link the suggest replacment template I'm presuming its {{Infobox settlement}} which seams overly complicated to point of being unusable to the average editor Gnangarra 03:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There was no attempt at even a cursory analysis of how the Australia-specific parameters would be respected in any merge into the complex Infobox Settlement. The TfD does not respect the consensus and history as developed through WP:AUS. A classic case of WP:IFITAINTBROKE. Dl2000 (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice the majority of the "keep" rationale here is we like it, it's bullying, get off our lawn, that's three hours of my life I won't get back, etc. "No valid reason for deletion" is not a valid arguement for retaining the status quo either. It also happens to be patently false, since according to WP:DP "redundant template" is a valid reason for deletion. I might go so far as to say that the only "bullying" going on here is in the weight of numbers bringing forward these non-arguments, unless those arguing in favour of the template are prepared to prove their assertion that "no valud reason" has been presented. {{infobox settlement}} is extensible so long as there is no physical limit on the number of parameters a template may take. Can anyone identify a specific feature not present in {{infobox settlement}} that can't be added to it? Usability is a non-issue - a WikiProject $Wherever page explaining "This is how you do it for places in $Wherever" fixes that. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No valid reason for deletion" is in fact a valid ground for opposing a deletion nomination - there must be a reason to delete put forward in order for deletion to be justified. As you say, redundancy is one of the grounds, but none of those coming here from the GEO project have actually demonstrated that the template is redundant to their own. Nor has even one of them suggested a plan to move forward. Very very poor change management. Orderinchaos 04:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"No valid reason for deletion" is not in fact a valid ground for opposiong a deletion nomination. That you believe no valid reason has been proposed (patently false, btw), does not excuse you from providing a valid reason of your own. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the border boxes in suburb articles are something which would not be easily addable to it. The funny thing is if you did, you'd be adding it only for the Australian case as only two other nations have the same concept of "suburb" as we do, and neither of them do it the same way. Another question worth asking, too, is why a 13k streamlined template should be replaced by a 37k gorilla of one - not everyone in the world has ultra-fast cable. Orderinchaos 04:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Of course it hasn't yet been demonstrated that the template 'is redundant. The TfD nomination skipped that part, focusing instead on supposed faults. There are perfectly valid reasons to prefer special-purpose regional templates and the proponents of standardisation haven't given any reason as to why standardisation is preferred (apparantely it is self-evident). I will ask you the same questions I asked above: What is the plan if and when this template is deleted? Wouldn't it be better to arrange any needed migration before deletion? -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is prima facie evidence of redundancy - namely that there exist two templates fulfilling the same function. Also, please identify the individual whose suggested course of actuon consists entirely of the simgle step "administrator presses 'delete' button". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, simply ignoring the fact that IAP does different things than IS does not make that fact go away. What are the benefits on standardising and using a general purpose template when the specific template does the job better at present. Give me a reason to support a migration, please. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Matt's question is crucial here. Usually when a template is successfully voted for deletion, a bot goes through and removes it, by deleting transclusions, or by substituting transclusions, or by replacing transclusions with some other template. In this case neither deleting nor substituting are on the table. And as far as I can tell, replacing cannot be done by bot, or at least it cannot be done by bot without first establishing community consensus on how it should be done. Ultimately, a group of volunteers will have to sit down, discuss the issue, figure out the best way forward, and implement a plan; all of which could have been done without this nomination. As far as I can tell, this nomination is goal-less. It has no potential to achieve anything at all except to piss people off. Hesperian 05:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, I believe this comes from a misunderstanding that "delete" = "administrator presses 'delete' button". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Enlighten us then. Pretend this was heading towards a consensus to delete. What happens after it is closed? Hesperian 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Any required fields/ functionality are added to {{Infobox settlement}}. The Australian infobox is converted to call Infobox settlement. Eventually, after testing, instances of the Australian infobox are substd (probably by bot) to render the as instances of Infobox settlement. The documentation of the Australian project is updated, with a blank pro-forma copy of Infobox settlement, excluding any irrelevant fields. All future maintenance is carried out once, not twice (or, more likely, once not dozens of times, as other boxes are also merged). Any improvements to Infobox settlement are automatically available to articles in places in Australia. Editors have one fewer infobox to know about, learn and use, thereby reducing their cognitive load. All this has already happened with a number of other such infoboxes, without drama. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant template. Consistency is best for readers and editors alike. hmwitht 05:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: I was not previously involved until this discussion, where I voiced my opinion because I saw it advertised elsewhere. I have no huge preference either way, but I'd prefer a standard template. I don't see why Australia cities are so different from every other country's cities. hmwitht 07:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You seem to have made the same assumption as the nominator. The template is called {{Infobox Australian Place}}, not {{Infobox Australian City}} for good reason. It isn't limited to just cities. It caters for suburbs, localities, towns, cities, Local Government Areas and even entire regions. There's also an option for none of the above. In doing so it provides automatic categorisation and linking based on the data contained in certain fields, a locator map that the nominator "missed", automatic calculation of certain things such as population density, automatic metric-imperial conversion (since Australia got rid of, theoretically at least, the imperial system years ago there's no conversion the other way - no rods, poles perches or chains here) and a neat little map that shows surrounding cities, towns, suburbs etc, depending on what type of place the infobox has been selected for. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: the template is a standard for Australian articles, being tailored to Australian conditions, and with Australia-specific functionality. It is very widely used, so that deletion would cause utter chaos, as noted above. – Radagast3 (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a Deletionism vs.Inclusionism issue and is not worth the worry. I think it is up to those who wish to delete to do the work of conversion to what ever is an alternative. There are currently 6,625 pages in the main space that transclude this template. –droll [chat] 06:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to implement an instance of this template for the featured article Hamersley, Western Australia and the results are far from impressive.
    1. Everything had to be manually entered. Most of our data people are not expert with the technology and we *already* have issues with people entering incorrect data in respective fields. It took me ages to key in all the info including manual links to parameters and I have an IT background and am a Wiki editor of 3.5 years standing - how would a newbie handle this? The IAP template contains a fair bit of "intelligence" to reduce the need for this and is designed for ease of use by any editor, not just the elite programmers. I can fire up an IAP instance in under a minute, or if using a database such as Access can mass-generate a heap of them.
    2. Multiple entries are not possible except entering lists of things separated by commas or br's. Our editors should not have to be programmers. Also the distances have to be manually coded, including the nbsp's and converts and the works. IAP does this automatically.
    3. It is unsightly and large by comparison.
    4. The code is far from intuitive and the directions for using it are poor. It would be difficult to modify once implemented, especially if one has to manage several thousand of them.
    5. There is a map which is completely useless in the "standard" one - Hamersley is only 14 km from Perth and this is not reflected in the map.
    6. We completely lose the information about surrounding suburbs.
    7. Coordinate information has to be entered twice; once for the template and the other in a separate "coord" declaration. This means that the link to geohack is not automatic from the coordinate entry in Infobox Settlement (which incidentally does not take decimal input, which reduces precision and also makes life difficult for those getting the data from Google Maps or the Gazetteer of Australia) IAP handles this internally.
Editors seriously proposing a migration should think about the more than 2,500 instances which relate to suburbs, and think about whether what they are offering is actually better in any way. It does not look good, it ups the usability barrier and introduces considerable scope for error, and it lacks key features of the Australian template. Orderinchaos 07:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity, how many people who voted keep or strong keep are Australian or a member of WP:Australia? 95%? This cannot possibly be a fair consensus. Note also Mattinbgn reported this in a sympathy for WP:AU kind of fashion at the village pump to canvass more votes to keep. This is clearly not a fair turn out and this template will only result in being kept because you are resistant to change and believe you own the articles.. My question still stands. What is the benefit of having a special template for Australia when a normal standard template used in 90% of other geo articles can accomplish the same thing? What is wrong with Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Standard settlement example? Personally I find that template easier to follow and the map a help.... Himalayan 10:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you start assuming good faith as it's pointless to go on who from where is voting and really is unhelpful. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith? That's funny coming from you lot. So far I've been called a bully, a North American, redundant, pointless, only place templates up for deletion because I don't like them (rather than them actually having flaws)... but actually I was only trying to simply do what I saw as an improvement. And nationality of the people who vote strong keep is relevant because it shows a very biased way of looking at things and the way they have also even voted to keep much worse templates for places like Bangladesh and Afghanistan because of this shows a distinct lack of maturity because they are not seeing things neutrally. Himalayan 11:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a product of your approach. Generally walking into a pub with your fists up and calling the participants names will get a fight. Walking in, ordering a beer and settling down to conversation with the locals gets a far better response. I would suggest trying it next time. And your accusations that Australians voted for the Bangladesh or Afghanistan one is silly, because none of us did. There is but one keep voter on each and they are not Australian. If you wish to attack us at least do so on the basis of truth rather than imagination. Orderinchaos 12:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Donama is not Australian? Himalayan 12:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your obsession with the nationality of the participants at this discussion is pointless. Why not concentrate on the merits of their arguments. If you don't agree with my comments at the pump, have your say there. My listing at the pump was not about canvassing, it was about seeing if there is a wider consensus for the program that you (and some like-minded editors) seem to have to standardise all regional infoboxes on IS. Finally, as you have been told numerous times above, the benefit of retaining IAP is that is simpler, more streamlined and does a range of things that IS does not do. Tell me, what exactly are the benefits of standardisation? You seem to consider standardisation to be a net positive, but you do not seem prepared to spell out why. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have to expect a large number of Australian editors will come here when you try to delete a template that we know works extremely well. We're the ones who use it. You may find it easy to use the settlement infobox but how many Australian articles have you worked on before nominating the template for deletion? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per User:Orderinchaos (Couldn't have said it any better myself) but also the Australian places template could have the maps (Depending on the use [LGA could use a LGA map, Place could use a region or state/territory and capitals could use just the Australian map]) added on if not already but should be discussed. Bidgee (talk) 10:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally a constructive comment. Bidgee, if you would please consider adding a location map to the infoboxes either the national svg or a regional pin locator I would probably not have nominated it. Basic location map is a basic requirement whatever the country and I think this template could at least benefit from adding a decent pin map. As for clicking the globe, server trouble of late means that often it greys out and doesn't load. A basic location map within an infobox is standard practice and should be for Australia, even if you insist on using a seperate template. I can see that you are accustomed to it, but please can you try to address my concerns and provide svg/pushpin maps within the templates for Aussie towns and please remove the ugly beige red dot maps from the beginning of articles... Himalayan 11:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For crying out loud, would you please read what you've been told several times. THE INFOBOX ALREADY INCLUDES A LOCATOR MAP FUNCTION. Yes I realise I'm yelling but you're obviously not getting it. And, can you please answer the question I asked so long ago, what do you mean in your nomination by "backwards district order"? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"THEN WHY DO 99 PERCENT OF ALL AUSTRALIAN PLACE ARTICLES HAVE NO LOCATOR MAP IF YOU HAVE INCLUDED IT? " Himalayan 12:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much answered why hours ago.[22] Nobody has entered the coordinate information. If you really want the locator map in each article, feel free to edit all 6,600+ articles. As I understand it, (I wasn't involved when it was added) consensus (yes, we work on consensus) was that a locator map wasn't a necessary requirement but it was provided nevertheless. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was provided for backward compatibility. What happened was we were replacing 21 earlier templates and heaps of manual ones, and a couple of the earlier templates had such maps. The group working on the template decided to keep as is as there was no harm in it (as it was optional) and the existing articles which used it could still use it. Himalayan seems to believe we are completely unreasonable, but I have said from the very beginning that I am of the opinion that such a map would be OK and we can even fix the code if necessary to make it work properly if it doesn't already, or to make it work in a more expected fashion. I've personally never used the feature but if others wish to see it, it would take two or three of us probably an hour to fix it up. I'm not sure how to check for existing uses of it (it probably needs toolserver access?) to ensure we don't stuff up ones that are already there. I doubt there would be many, though. Orderinchaos 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section 3
  • Two comments copied from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#TfD of enormous interest for info
    • From Template talk:Infobox settlement, it is quite clear that there is an organised campaign to remove all region-specific locality infoboxes and replace them with the bloated {{infobox settlement}} regardless of whether it is an improvement or otherwise. There does not seem to have been any attempt to determine if the move to one template is supported by consensus (or indeed, if IS works better than IAP or other regional infoboxes). I suggest that those pushing for standardisation have put the cart in front of the horse. They would be better off firstly determining consensus, then if consensus is for a move arranging a migration program and only then deleting the deprecated template. This method of seeking deletion will cause chaos in the short term as over 6,000 articles will lose their infoboxes until such time as someone gets around to putting IS on them (It is most definitely a job I would not want to leave to a bot). -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Utter FUD,. There is absolutely no way that articles will loose their infoboxes; that is not what is proposed, and not what happens when similar infoboxes have been deprecated in favour of {{Infobox settlement}}. And, once again, please do not fragment discussion; make your points on the TfD page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, how about shring a little bit of information about your plan after getting consensus to delete to the people you actually maintain the articles where the template will be used? I know it's a pain having to deal with "parochial" editors but how about humouring us. There have been several invitations to do so above, but no one has seen fit to provide an answer. Secondly, I feel that the wider issue of standardising around IS deserves a wider discussion than one-off TfDs. Why you seem to be opposed to widening the discussion is a mystery to me. Thirdly, perhaps rather than dismissing all opposition to standardisation as "parochial" or WP:OWN, some discussion with relevant regional WikiProjects about their concerns before proposing such radical changes may lead to a better response. At the moment all I see in the way of argument from the deletion side is "do it our way, and if you don't like it, you must be bloody-minded nationalists with OWN issues". If standardisation is so desirable, how about actually explaining why this is so? Treating the editors who maintain the regional locality articles with high-handed contempt isn't likely to win you much support with any proposed migration. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • These guys couldn't organise a root in a brothel. Sorry, but it had to be said. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You are verging on being offensive and it is completely unnecessary here. Himalayan 12:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being unresponsive is offensive. I'm still waiting for an answer to my very earlier question and you've continually ignored the multiple statements that I've made about the locator map. Not discussing the proposal with the people most affected by it, as you should have done before nominating a template that is used on over 6,600 articles is extremely poor form so please, don't dictate policy. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not in the least opposed to widening discussion, (though I do regard fragmenting discussion of a TfD as harmful; if not canvassing). Nor have I "dismissed all opposition to standardisation as parochial or WP:OWN". You certainly haven't seen the attitudes you describe from me. I'm very happy to discuss the benefits of standardisation (including but not limited to: reduction in maintenance overhead; rapid deployment of new functionality; reduced cognitive load for editors); and have been doing so with regard to templates about settlements, and requesting contributions from various quarters, for at least two years. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you guys have made it blantantly obvious that you are perfectly happy with this template. Now can you please try to see me in a different light that maybe I do have a point about including a pin map within the infoboxes and that some of the parameters like postcode or timezone may be better at the bottom of the template than at the top. Please can you seriously think about what I've said about having a decent quality map within the infobox and try not to dismiss me as a bully. Himalayan 11:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what part of "there already is a pin map in the infobox" do you not understand? --AussieLegend (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the template and while it does allow you to find the x and y values it does not include a simply location map like it does in other templates like Template:Infobox French commune. You should be able to simply add a locator map to the infboxes without having to resort to x and y values. Now if you could please edit an existing infobox to display a pin map and I might start to understand you. Himalayan 12:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you kindly tell me exactly what needs to be inserted into here to get a pin location map to appear? . Now pushpin_map=Australia doesn't work. If it did I would quietely get on with adding maps to the town articles at least. If you could add coordinates and a national map to that article I could copy your example and get on with what I have to do without causing further disturbment here. Himalayan 12:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are on the template documentation page under "Notes". Orderinchaos 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And they're linked three times within this discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down with the caps thanks. No need to yell. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Acadfrcat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Acadfrcat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The category that it includes doesn't use numbers as sorting. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Prettytable95

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prettytable95 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Prettytable100center (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated with class="wikitable". Unused. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in any articles. Should be replaced with the standard Template:Infobox settlement. Himalayan 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Gnangarra, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. We should allow various templates to have a regional flavour rather than forcing conformity Pahari Sahib 12:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. There doesn't appear to be anything unique in this template that isn't in the global template, and it is used on a small number of articles so replacement should be easy. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused and redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Stunning beauty of graphics and simplicity of the Image:Afghanistan locator map.svg-map, made me fall for this template, and I incorporated this file in Template:Infobox military attack, when I was writing Kunduz airstrike, as I again felt the simplicity of the map (without surrounding countries) and the little red dot and the Citys name was very beautiful and simple, but now someone has removed that option from that template. But what puzzles me is how somebody have managed to also remove the map from Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan, and why? PS: You can still see the original map in the example on the templates documentation. But in a wider political perspective I could understand why someone do not like all of Afghanistan cities under the same 'Afghanistan-only' colour, because one of the problems in todays conflict is the drive to create a central government for the very diverse people in Afghanistan, who doesn't feel like afghans first and foremost, but see themselves as Pasthuns, Tadjiks etc. Michelle Bentley (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stunning beauty of graphics" is a valid reason to keep? Because you like the fact is used purple? You say we remove all of the current infoboxes from all of the articles and replace with one that looks "pretty"? Rather than the template actually being more flexible and have the ability to store more info you'd like to keep it because it is purple? LOL, sounds like something my mum would say. Lets buy that car because I like the colour!! Um, if you look at the Kunduz airstrike article now you'll see we don't use that white map, we use a better quality svg and have done for some time.. Himalayan 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template is currently unused. You can use whatever map you want in {{Infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poole Town FC Squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per T3. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poole Town FC Squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not being used. Unlikely ever to be used. Unlikely to be beneficial if used as this list is probably only ever going to be of interest to one article. DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Town AT

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Town AT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The reason for deleting this template is because it is in German! German language text is not permitted on wikipedia especially when editors are supposed to understand exactly what each refers to... Meaning we have several thousand articles maybe with German text in. I understand they were copied from German wikipedia which was great as a start, now I feel it is time they were converted to english and to a standard Template:Infobox settlement. Not to mention that the map shouldn't be the same size as the coat of arms and it uses a big red pin so in effect the locator marks like a 60 mile radius!! Himalayan 10:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No actual reason for deletion given. The nominator's comments apply to many useful templates (for example the railway ones which are used all over the place). I don't see why the fields (non-visible) being in a different language, so long as the documentation correctly explains it, is a problem. The greatest number of users of this template will likely be Germanic-speaking anyway as, despite contributing in English, their local knowledge and ability to access sources in that language would be essential to improving articles and details (English language sources are often deficient for European topics). If it presents a particular problem to the nominator, it would not be hard to decide upon an appropriate translation of the template fields and then get a bot to go over all instances. It appears to be a useful template that meets local circumstances far better than the generic. Orderinchaos 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should try to Assume Good Faith a bit more. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it works, use it. If I am coding up an Austrian town, I'll use the Austrian template. If I don't quite understand the terms used (and they seem pretty intuitive anyway so that is unlikely), I'll look at whatever documentation is available to work out how to do so. It's back end coding, it doesn't appear to the user (so is not "German text on Wikipedia"), and it probably makes it easier for those who actually *know the language and can read the sources* (i.e. Austrians, people from neighbouring countries, expatriates or students/workers/migrants living in Austria) to add content - which I fully support. Orderinchaos 03:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The template isn't in German, it's bilingual, allowing easy cut-and-paste from the German Wikipedia and perfectly normal editing by any non-German-speaking editor. If someone wants to make it so that the template itself transcludes Template:Infobox settlement then that would be a useful change, but it seems like a particularly foolish idea to delete a template that's used on nearly 2500 pages when it makes perfect sense to have an Austrian-specific template (just as there are French-, German- and British-specific templates) that make it easier to ensure that Template:Infobox settlement is consistently implemented across a nation. If you have a problem with the German arguments, I'm sure you can use AutoWikiBrowser to search and replace them to the English-language equivalents, but deleting the template is something of a sledgehammer for that walnut. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep A bullying attempt to force conformity on a North American standard that does not apply here. Attempting to make square pegs fit round holes is futile. Passive aggressive comments like "Mmm. Would you really be commenting here if I hadn't have nominated "your" Aussie template too?" don't really help either. Address comments on their merits, not what you feel their underlying basis to be. Cherry-picking the Australian and Austrian templates while leaving {{infobox UK place}}, {{Infobox French commune}} etc. alone smacks of trying to pick off the easy targets and then claim precedent to get rid of the rest. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess AGF applies both ways and the nominator would be best advised to keep this in mind as well. I suggest Speedy Keep as the way forward because this method of cherry-picking individual cases is a poor and divisive way of assessing consensus for these nation-specific infoboxes. My keep rationale is clear (and your failure to understand it, wilful). The nation-specific infoboxes better reflect the nation-specific circumstances they have been created to deal with. A single infobox (designed to reflect North American circumstances) is too large and unwieldy to allow for simple use everywhere. Regional variation is best dealt with in a manner similar to WP:ENGVAR rather than a bullying, crash through approach to standardis(z)e on the US model. Believe it or not, things really are different in the rest of the world and a "one size fits all model" does not always work. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the nominator is being rather petty about the size of the locator dot. These things can be changed. It's also rather hypocritical given that one of his complaints about {{Infobox Australian Place}} is that its locator map should be of the whole country rather than individual states. If changes were implemented to suit his desires then the Australian dot would cover a much larger area than the Austrian dot does now. While he argues for standardisation, there's not a lot of it in his nominations and the complaints that he uses in an attempt to justify deletion. As for the size of the coat of arms, compare the size of the seal of Lincoln, Nebraska, which uses {{Infobox settlement}}, to the state map. I don't really see an issue with size in either template but if there is a real concern about the size of the coat of arms, I'm sure it can be changed. I must admit, I'm rather concerned at the weak excuses the nominator is using in his crusade to get the same bulky template jammed into as many articles as possible, when much smaller, purpose-designed templates are doing an excellent job. This template seems to be one of those. Having examined the template code, I don't see any real issue with translating the field names into English if that's really necessary. As the instructions are bilingual there is no problem with the template as it stands and the translation seems like a lot of effort for very little outcome, although not as much effort as replacing the template. Since there seems to be no real, justifiable reason for standardising for standardising's sake, (many years in project management taught me that is very rarely a good thing), I have to vote keep. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Merge in any extra parameters. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattingbn. This somewhat is suspect of bullying tactics to force a "standard" template without discussion with the involved wikiprojects and countries involved. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattingbn. Aaroncrick (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice the keep comments here tend to focus on two statements. One is "one size does not fit all". The proposer of that viewpoint may be surprised to find out thanks to named parameters to a template being optional, and no limitation on the number of parameters a template may know about (there may be one on the number actually passed, but we don't seem to have hit it yet), in this case one size does indeed fit all. The other statement is that there has been "no valid reason" for deletion or deprecation. I would ask that someone advancing this statement prove its truth. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' No, replacing an easy to use streamlined template with a bloated monstrosity of a template attempting to be all things to all people does not equate to "one size fits all". The onus is on the self-appointed standardisation committee to demonstrate that this standardisation is actually useful and desirable. Merely stating "redundant" before actually assessing if it actually is redundant (let alone actually coming to some consensus with the users of the template about what the issues are) is not a valid argument to delete. This short sighted attempt to push through with a standardisation program that does not have demonstrated support from the wider community is doomed to failure unless you and your fellow group of standardisers tone down the arrogance and demonstrate some good-faith willingness to discuss the issues with the wider community. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cease and desist your bullying. There is prima facie evidence of redundancy. This is a valid reason to propose the template is deprecated and deleted (it says so at the top of WP:TFD and WP:DP). Evidently the nominator feels that this alone demonstrates consensus not to retain redundant templates in the article space. Migration is inherent in the execution of template deletion. Your repeated attacks, circular arguments and deliberate misrepresentations are fast becoming disruptive. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IDONTLIKE isnt a valid reason, apparently this is one of many nominations suggest the nominator work with the community at large rather than pushing changes thru TFD. Gnangarra 04:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite a single comment to this TfD whose reasoning is "I don't like it". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very easy - the nomination statement. 1 = I don't like it, it has German in it failing to mention it's only in the back end and each and every term is bilingual! For a German-speaking location with German-speaking editors! Heavens! "now I feel it is time they were converted to english" - Yes, those damn Austrians, they should just, you know, get with the times and adapt. 2 = Comments about maps and coats of arms. Oh dear, they're showing signs of *shock horror* individual thought! Can't have that on Wiki. What would we have next? OK, so I'm being sarcastic for humorous purposes, but the entire nom is an IDONTLIKEIT without any reason given to delete and any serious proposal for moving forward besides criticising perfectly good faith people from another culture. Orderinchaos 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about the nomination statement for a start. "I feel it is time they were converted to english and to a standard Template:Infobox settlement." No reason actually given, apparently it is self-evident.
  • Speedy close as unactionable. The only sensible way to handle this is to get consensus to migrate, then migrate, then delete the template. This nomination is upside-down. Hesperian 06:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Orderinchaos ("one size fits all" does not work) with which I agree regardless of my nationality or ethnic persuasion. Donama (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At best, the proposal for deletion is premature. First, the interchangeability of the templates should be clearly demonstrated and second the project(s) that use the templates should be engaged to produce a consensus supporting the switchover. Neither has happened. Furthermore, as others have discussed above and elsewhere, the philosophical approach of one-size-fit-all is deeply problematic in it that usually either results loss of features or in greater complexity (i.e., a higher obstacle for usability). older ≠ wiser 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mattingbn, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. Ostensibly it is for standardisation, but custom Infoboxes tend to be better I believe, succinct lines of code to display the details and easier to maintain. And they actually allow uniformity across that particular WikiProject. Pahari Sahib 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy close per Hesperian. Ian Spackman (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Although some text is in German, each section is bilingual and confusion is not an issue. Secondary vote to edit if absolutely necessary Raan0001 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it is truly redundant, consensus should be found to convert them all to the more general template, before deletion is considered. Presumably the project uses it for a reason, so that indicates they don't consider it redundant. The bilingual nature allowing easy copying from German wikipedia certainly sounds like a useful feature to me.YobMod 10:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand how templates are actually converted. Nothing is deleted whatsoever. The current AT infobox is updated with a more standard layout and english text so it becomes more like the standard. Then a bot or automation is used to just switched the paramters in an easy transition by rmeoving the German fields and replacing with engnlish so when you edit the page you do not see German text. I think most people imagine that somehow these infoboxes will all be rmeoved. Absolutely not, it is just a move to a more standard layout (and to remove German text). I was involved myself under an old account copying infoboxes from German wikipedia. Now they have all been copied, there is now no longer a need to retain the German text. Himalayan 10:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the template is being deleted, why is there a need for "the standard" - aren't regional templates easier to maintain by their respective WikiProjects rather trying to steamroller them all away and confirm to one big template. Can't the bot be employed to make any changes to the current template, after discussion with the WikiProject - what is the point of a WikiProject otherwise? Pahari Sahib 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can. You have a point about project discussion, I did mention it to WP:Pakistan and also said about the huge cleanup task that was needed. As far as I'm aware nobody responded, only you who objected. What you are fialing to see about this template is that it isn't because "it is easier to operate a regional template" it is that this template only existed because it enabled us to copy infoboxes directly from German wikipedia. Now that they have all been transferred there is no need to keep a bilingual template, it could easily be converted into english at least even if the template remains seperate. Himalayan 13:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you being somewhat disingenuous here, you never discussed the TFD at WikiProject Pakistan and when did I object to the cleanup? Coming back to this template, if there is "no need to keep a bilingual template" then the appropriate action would be to discuss this at the WikiProject - not to ask for the template itself to be removed. Pahari Sahib 17:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert backend to use {{infobox settlement}}. This will allow everyone to see the result of a merger, and make sure that nothing is lost in the process, as well as providing a more unified appearance. Once the backend is converted in a satisfactory manner, debate on the merits of keeping this as a regional-specific frontend can continue. Oh, and yes, I am willing to do the initial conversion. Just ping me. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Intro-fringe

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intro-fringe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template states: The neutrality of this introduction is disputed with the claim that a fringe or minority topic or view has been given too much space or attention. However the {{POV-intro}} template already states: The neutrality of this introduction is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. It seems that this template is redundant. Whether the POV is fringe or just biased is irrelevant.

The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Wiki User

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wiki User (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently an unused template. Completely orphaned. Created in 2007, editor has not edited since and appears it has been orphaned all that time. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Adelitas Way

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adelitas Way (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Currently there is nothing to navigate here. All links are already present in each article. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Actors in Yasmin Ahmad films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Actors in Yasmin Ahmad films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A navbox with actors that participated in films from X director? I don't think this is something good. Anyway, most of links are red. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 02:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AZocc

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:NODISCLAIMERS and any notable "controversy" should be stated in "the article text, not as a warning template." Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AZocc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:AZnote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NODISCLAIMERS. If there is not reliable source, then there shouldn't be an article. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 01:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unresolvable inherent POV, and an inappropriate disclaimer. I note we don't have a template for "Reliable information about this location may be lacking because nobody lives there" ({{ghost-town}}?). 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --RL0919 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is useless clutter. –droll [chat] 18:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a shorthand way to tell people that the place, while de jure part of Azerbaijan, is in Nagorno-Karabakh. The nominator totally misunderstands its purpose: It doesn't say that there are no reliable sources, hence no article; it says that there is no reliable source on the current conditions of the place. Since we have no reliable sources for the current condition of any missing people, we should delete those articles based on Locos' idea. Removing the template will make it seem as though WP has no clue that some places of Azerbaijan are under occupation by NK. If dumbing down is the purpose...go for it. Let's also remove all templates about NK while we're at it, since it doesn't really exist. As for POV, if you thought that it was POV to mention that the place is under occupation, then we'll remove that sort of rubbish in various articles elsewhere if that's what WP is. More dumbing down. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this doesn't need to be a template. Information about the state of Nagorno-Kharabakh should be contained in the article text, not as a warning template. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6&oldid=1136431066"